On this last day of Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings, witnesses spoke regarding Brett Kavanaugh’s fitness (or lack thereof) to serve a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

The last three days have been both grueling and enlightening. It looks more than ever like a concerted effort between interested parties selected and nominated Kavanaugh — not in a manner typically of previous nominees, but in the interest of those whose personal fortunes and legal status hinge directly on the existence of a conservative on the court who will decide in their favor.

Parties like Trump’s administration, his campaign donors, his personal business circle; parties like war criminals who served in previous administrations; and parties like Trump supporters, who expect their quid pro quo delivered in the form of religious freedom to deny others’ civil rights.

One could argue this is business as usual but it’s not, when the president himself is already implicated as an unindicted co-conspirator who may directly benefit from a swing justice who believes in unrestrained executive power.

How could a reasonable person not come to the conclusion that the collaborative, collective, concerted effort behind Kavanaugh is a conspiracy to obstruct justice?

Let’s fight fire with fire, get in ‘good trouble‘ as Rep. John Lewis calls it; let’s collaborate and collectively lay out before the public who is willing to support this obstruction and who is not before Kavanaugh’s nomination goes to the entire Senate for a vote. Are you ready to whip the people’s Senate? Are you willing to make phone calls and ask your senators where they stand on Kavanaugh?

I’ll go first; I’ll fill in your responses from your senators in the table below as you collect them and share them in comments below.

Bob Casey of Pennsylvania on July 9 — “I will oppose the nomination the President will makes tonight because it represents a corrupt bargain with the far Right, big corporations, and Washington special interests.”

I live in PA – have not heard anything to indicate otherwise.

Other senators’ firm opposition and support is listed in article, as of July 30.

“The Pennsylvania lawmaker’s office sent out a news release shortly after 11:30 a.m., stating that he will not be supporting Trump’s nominee for the top court, regardless of which of the four finalists it is.”

***
“’This list is the bidding of corporate special interests hell-bent on handing health care over to insurance companies, crushing unions that represent working men and women, and promoting policies that will leave the middle-class further behind,’ Casey said. ‘Any judge on this list is fruit of a corrupt process straight from the D.C. swamp.’”

Hi, Rayne – not sure if you did, but did you see the two links I provided above re: Casey? In the CNN link you can even see statements from other supporters/ rejecters who you may not have on your grid yet.

I don’t see anything showing Casey has had change of heart to accept Kavanaugh – from the Pittsburgh Gazette yesterday, Casey’s opponent, Barletta, is trying to skewer him for rejecting K. before even knowing who the nomination would be (he made his statement based on the fact that any of the 4 finalists was coming off The Federalist Society list), and before even meeting him. Casey has not met K. and has said so many things in opposition to this corrupt process of pulling judges off of a corporate list, that I can hardly see him changing tack now, especially since he’s up for reelection:

NO. quote, Most importantly, I am gravely concerned by Judge Kavanaugh’s writings. Based on his own words, I fear that Judge Kavanaugh would be the deciding vote in critical cases that restrict a woman’s freedom to make health care decisions with her doctor, tear away protections that guarantee Americans with pre-existing conditions may obtain health insurance and empower a President of the United States to be above the law. That is why I must vote no.”

Reporting from my little coastal paradise (no major fires this year–yet) I’ve been assured that both future-President Kamala Harris and I-can’t-believe-she’s-running-for-another-term DiFi are voting no.

I’m looking for a concrete No verbally or in writing so I’m holding Harris and Feinstein open though I am pretty sure they are both a firm No. Their Twitter timelines are quite condemnatory of Kavanaugh’s testimony.

Save this number to your favorites: (202) 224-3121. Call your Senators in the morning and tell them to oppose Kavanaugh. Call them in the afternoon. Leave a message at night. Keep making your voice heard.

Sen. Kamala Harris came out in opposition to Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court within 20 minutes of President Trump’s announcement of his pick. Sen. Dianne Feinstein was invited to the White House to watch the president reveal his selection, but declined — and later issued a statement that stopped just short of declaring she’d vote against the nominee.

Unlike the junior senator, who announced her opposition to Kavanaugh less than half an hour after Trump nominated him in July, Feinstein won’t officially say how she’ll vote until the hearing process is finished. That’s been her practice ever since she was first elected in 1992, but in the current climate, such formalities seem almost quaint.

I wrote to Menendez and Booker in NJ. No word back, but from where I’m sitting and what I’m reading, they should both be firm NOs. I mean, Booker seems pretty obvious. You never know when it comes to one of the Menendez brothers. He could theoretically blow your head off. Wait…hmm. I think I’m confused.

Hmm. I really want a specific response on Kavanaugh from all senators not on the Judiciary Committee. Menendez’s not in the same position as Joe Manchin (D-WV) or Heidi Heidtkamp (D-ND) who are both in reddish states and running for office. I see his tweets insisting Kavanaugh be stopped but I’d like a definitive No. The strongly blue states’ senators need to be equally strong in their No to Kavanaugh to provide backstop and pressure on the rest of their cohort.

Rayne,
Ty for great thread. I’ve made phone calls to AZ Senators: Flake, Kyle. Left phone message. AZ governor Ducey in Kyle appointing speech stated Kyle would vote for Kavanaugh. Kyle’s former DC law firm has taken out adds supporting Kavanaugh. Flake supports NYT op-ed approach to the Palace occupant, in other words trash talk but vote in support of Palace nominee.

I called both my senators last week to tell them no. Of course I only got to leave voice messages. I just sent them messages via ResistBot. I will let you know when I hear back “officially”, but I can guarantee what my a**hole senators will do. I live in Texas.

I have called and emailed Flake’s office every day this week. Email response: form letters saying thank you for contacting our office. DC office – voice mail. Tucson office – voice mail box full. As for Kyl, no response yet. Called and emailed once he was sworn in. (Like he’s not a YES! YES! OH GOD, YEEEESSSSSSS! sheep’s vote for his “client”, Kavanaugh.)

Thanks very much for trying. Flake is a remote possibility, depending on whether the tea leaves tell the GOP that Kavanaugh is toast and Flake needs the No to engender better numbers in the polls. Kyl will be just as you said, Trump’s sheep, but it’ll be nice to put him on the record for certain.

If you could locate print or video documentation I would greatly appreciate it — having second thoughts on methods of validating senators’ votes after being approached by trolls on another issue. Thanks!

I received an email from MI Senator Gary Peters on Aug. 29th. He said he will vote “No” on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. Senator Peters was responding to an email I sent to him opposing Judge Kavanaugh.

I’m going to have to find that NPR report before I put down his vote, sorry. Blunt posted a pro-Kavanaugh tweet on the 6th which means he would have had a BIG change of heart that could cost Kavanaugh the seat.

From the first paragraph:
“The judiciary’s power comes from its words alone—judges command no army and control no purse. In a democracy, judges have legitimacy only when their words deserve respect, and their words deserve respect only when those who utter them are ethical. Opinion writing is public writing of the highest order; people are affected not only by judicial opinions but also by how they are written. Therefore, judges and the opinions they write—opinions scrutinized by litigants, attorneys, other judges, and the public—are held, and must be held, to high ethical standards. Ethics must constrain every aspect of the judicial opinion.”

Bernie Sanders would be a ‘no’. He posted a Vox article on his Facebook page today, saying “nothing is more important now that doing everything in our power to stop this nomination”. That seems pretty definitive.

Thank you to all the New Mexicans who are engaged and making their voices heard as the Supreme Court confirmation process unfolds in the Senate. This note was just dropped off at my office in Albuquerque. I stand with you in opposing Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination!

[This was on his FB feed and he had stated a clear “No” earlier. I called Udall’s office today to urge a similar stand. Udall has expressed reservations but I want a firm “No” and nothing less.

Thats our local one, there are also national interviews. Up here many call him Ohio Dan. Believe it or not, before the oil boom, Alaska was more progressive and our constitution reflects that, thanks for answering!!
And thanks for producing the chart!

I wish I could assume two Rs voting No would kill it but there are a small number of Ds who often slide to the other side. I’d like to think Schumer and Durbin were whipping ALL their team behind No but some Ds can be like herding cats.

Peacerme, you a Nebraskan? Just got back from there — folks are selling the family farm, Scottsbluff County (sigh). Thanks for calling . . . I’ve put the folks onto this too today.
p.s. thought I spotted Roger Stone at DIA on the way home.

Yes. I am in Omaha. I always thought our slogan should be “the drive thru state”. You never know who is lurking on I-80. I am sorry to hear of your farm sale. Regardless of reason for sale, seems it would be very emotional.

Roger stone eh?

We once ran into Clarence Thomas at Wheatfields, in Omaha. Secret service took up half the room. He was a loud talker, and did not seem the slightest bit concerned with keeping a low profile. It was cool just for the kids to see secret service.

So maybe, even if/when The Kav sails through and becomes out next SCOTUS judge…maybe this sort of documentation, plus whatever a majority Dem House can subpoena, would allow for a justifiable SCOTUS impeachment?

After meeting with him, reviewing his record, and watching his hearing, Judge Kavanaugh has clearly failed to show he would be an independent check against executive power. He would threaten Supreme Court precedent on women’s health, marriage equality, and more.

Actually you probably don’t need an impeachment to remove a SCOTUS judge, a simple indictment will do it, per State Supreme Court precedent. An indicted judge cannot participate in any cases presented to him and likely would be forced to resign by the Chief Justice. ANY Judge can be indicted, even a SCOTUS Justice – there is no ambiguity on this point.

But do we have any Supreme Court (not state) precedent? Is there anything in Constitution or law to back this? I don’t trust Roberts to do the right thing with a simple indictment when a strongly conservative bench is in the offing with Kavanaugh on board.

I have been emailing Cory Gardner all along…I have three emails this week, pointing out that Gardner’s votes on the most corrupt cabinet in history is a kitchen table discussion, as well as, his solid support of this Kavanaugh guy…and that us’n regular voters are paying attention, and we are helping our friends who don’t pay much attention to politics, with keeping them educated and informed of what is happening in the political world…I am about to send another email to Gardner today, insisting that he return the bribes, and vote NO on Kavanaugh…as for Senator Bennet, he is a solid no…and of course, I email him too…

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office about the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Your input is important to me, and I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.

The Constitution grants the president the power to make nominations to the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. Like you, I believe it is extremely important to ensure that our Supreme Court Justices are highly qualified and make decisions rooted in the law rather than based on personal or political beliefs.

On July 19th, I had a very good meeting with Judge Kavanaugh and think he is a superb nominee. He answered the questions that I asked very clearly, succinctly and professionally, and I don’t think the meeting could have gone any better. For more than 12 years, Judge Kavanaugh has served honorably on the federal bench, hearing critical cases before the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals. It is inspiring to me to see someone of his caliber, who has dedicated his life in the fashion that he has, have this opportunity to serve on the Supreme Court. I thank him for his desire to serve our country, and assuming there are no surprises in his confirmation hearing, I plan to enthusiastically support to his nomination.

Thank you again for your letter. I hope you continue to share your thoughts with me.

Well, Rubio will most likely be a Yes based on his pre-hearing comments. Plus he is an R and has no back bone.

Nelson is in a weird place due mostly of his own lackluster campaign making. He has not indicated one way or another but since he has been running a crap campaign against Scott (who has not hung on Trump’s coat tails) he has to one concerned that a No vote will rile up the Crazy Red Floridians. He did not meet with Kavanaugh even though he initially said he would. Tightrope walking. I have never liked Nelson. I like Scott way less having suffered him 8 years as governor – crook. But trading a No vote from Nelson for his Senate seat might be a best worse deal. We are trying for a No.

Rayne–I live part of the year in Maine and regularly correspond with Sens. Collins and King. Here’s what I wrote each one and am waiting on the (automated) replies..

“Dear Senator Collins: I listened to much of the Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. I know that you met with the judge last month on the 21st and you say you were reassured that he agrees *Roe v. Wade* and *US v. Nixon* are settled precedent. I listened to the judge’s answers to the questions about those cases and cannot agree with you. Based on what I heard, a Justice Kavanaugh would vote to overturn both *Roe* and *US v. Nixon* as wrongly decided.
I ask you to make a public statement soon saying you will vote NO on the nomination, after you and your staff had a chance to review this week’s hearing and the judge’s answers to follow-up written questions.
Thank you,
–J.O.
Perry, ME 04667”

Good point, Rayne. I suspect it would depend on the nature of the indictment. Bribery would probably do it. The more likely charge in BK’s case is perjury for lying to Congress in TWO confirmation hearings. The issue for Roberts is the credibility of the SCOTUS. Does Roberts care ? He might. And what does he do if BK is convicted, the case is successfully appealed and lands in the Supreme Court. Does he gamble that BK recuses himself, since “no man can serve as his own judge”. It is dilemma no Chief Justice would want to confront.

IMHO, the perjury BK committed in both 2006 and 2018 is serious enough to warrant indictment. Let the Judicial Branch decide if politics or its integrity and reputation are more important. The authority of the courts is like a house of cards. If the people don’t believe the courts are fair, they are in big trouble as an institution.

Esp for Rayne and Bmaz — still going through stacks of old documents and sharpening my own thinking about what it is about Kavenaugh, and a lot of Federalist so-called thinkers, that drives me bonkers.

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall when they were learning grammar, or in their legal writing courses, or gaining insight into whether any of these people ever actually read literature (for instance, Gibbon — with his mordant descriptions and glorious sentence structures.). The few samples of Kavenaugh’s decisions that I was able to skim strike me as ‘meh’, which is worrying — because writing with clarity and concision is a key function of any judge. It’s as if his thinking is somehow standardized, ready for shelving in a sequence of legal tomes.

A 1981 research study “Readability Formulas: Used or Abused”,

“...Readability formulas are really equations which state that readability is a function of some other variables, such as word complexity and sentence complexity…. usually expressed as the educational level of a reader who can understand the material… Word complexity is usually some count of syllables, such as syllables per hundred words or percentage of three-syllable words. Sentence complexity is most frequently measured in terms of average sentence length. The formulas are derived by using a statistical study to relate variables such as these to the known grade levels of standardized paragraphs…”

In the late 80s or early 1990s, Microsoft embedded ‘Readability’ into Word, and I hate to admit how many times I used that feature to assess whether I needed to ‘dumb something down’ a bit more, until I swore off the damn thing. I finally swore off it after realizing that ‘dumbing down’ was creating no end of ripple effects, not worth the intellectual or social costs.

I suspect that Kavenaugh is prone to write a kind of Readability version of the law: it’s a subtle ideology, but impedes clear thinking and accurate description. This might help explain his alliance to ideology, rather than doing the more challenging work of seeing what is in front of his nose, and describing the details, as well as the larger meanings, accurately.

Interesting — quite possible BK is as you describe, but I tend to think his personal ideology tends so much toward black and white that nuance can’t be read let alone written. He’s 1-bit monochrome in a High Dynamic Ranging world, intellectually blind and unfit for the highest court of the land.

Bless you for that synopsis, Rayne. So sad on so many levels, including what it means for everyone who votes to confirm this cartoonish, dualistic view of the world.

I’m amazed at my overwhelming sadness at watching this play out. It’s like watching justice be suffocated, strangled, and desiccated by people who don’t realize that the intensity of their grasping chokes the life out of the things they claim to seek: legitimacy and power. And their very blindness signals their unfitness.

I’m amazed at how profoundly sad it is to watch the GOP, and Kavenaugh. I’m not even angry at this point; I’m just overwhelmed by how sad it is, how small their lives must be. We’re about to have yet another martinet on the SCOTUS, nominated by a criminal, and approved by clapping seals.

How that leads to justice, or legitimacy, or judicious decisions, escapes me entirely.

OK, I think I got Schumer and Gillibrand as a “No” based on their twitter statements.

Gillebrand (7/9/18): “I stand by my pledge to vote no on President Trump’s nominee, because the American people deserve the opportunity to make their voices heard in November about this lifetime appointment”

Schumer (8/22/18): “At this moment in our nation’s history, the Senate should not confirm a man to the bench who believes presidents are virtually beyond accountability, even in criminal cases; that they are essentially above the law and only Congress can check a president’s power.”

Also, I found this spreadsheet to be very helpful in tracking Yes/No/Neutral Senators re Kavanaugh at whipthevote.org:

Excellent! I’ve just done another check on the list we have so far, added firm Yes votes. I’d like to see firm No votes from community members here so that the lean No and uncommitted realize we are still calling to check.

OK, just got my email from Schumer who still is a “NO” to Kavanaugh. As they say, “When a problem comes along, you must whip it”.

“In considering a candidate for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I have three main criteria: legal excellence, moderation and diversity. Judge Kavanaugh was picked from a list of 25 people who were vetted and approved by the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation — special interest groups devoted to overturning Roe v. Wade, the court case protecting a woman’s right to choose. These groups have also made it their main mission to strike down the Affordable Care Act. Judge Kavanaugh was nominated because he passed these litmus tests, not because he will be an impartial judge on behalf of all Americans. So, I will oppose his nomination and continue to fight for a bipartisan rejection of this nominee and urge the President to put forth a moderate selection that both parties could support.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please keep in touch with your thoughts and opinions.”